In many countries it is a reality and from certain political speeches in the US, seems the same people who admire Kim for his iron clad control over NK also would love to see this happen. Seriously, I cannot understand for example the US has 16 states that allow child marriage and based on freedom of religion, the US still allows non consensual poligamy with minors. Yet, money talks…
I wasn’t aware of that. Can you provide any references?
Can this be a reference?
From Wikipedia:
Current polygamist groups
Members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) practice polygamy in arranged marriages that often, but not always, place young girls with older men. Most FLDS members live in Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona, about 350 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, with other communities in Canada, Texas and other areas of the North American west. The FLDS leader is currently Warren Jeffs.[26]
In 1998, about 40,000 people living in Utah were part of a polygamist family, or about 1.4 percent of the population.[27] Polygamists have been difficult to prosecute because many only seek marriage licenses for their first marriage, while the other marriages are secretly conducted in private ceremonies. Thereafter, secondary wives attempt to be seen in public as single women with children.[27]
Multiple divorce and marriage for polygamy
Some polygamous families use a system of multiple divorce and legal marriage as a loophole in order to avoid committing a criminal act. In such cases the husband marries the first wife, she takes his last name, he divorces her and then marries the next wife, who takes his name. This is repeated until he has married and divorced all his wives, except possibly the last one. This way the wives feel justified in calling themselves Mrs [husband’s last name] and, while legally they are divorced from the husband, they still act as if married to him and expect those around them to acknowledge and respect this.
Since only one wife is officially married to the husband at any one time, no law is being broken and so this type of polygamous family unit can be overt about their relationship. The conviction of Thomas Arthur Green in 2001 may have made the legal status of such relationships more precarious in Utah, although Green’s bigamy convictions were made possible only by his own public statements.
Polygamy today
Mormon fundamentalist sects tend to aggregate in individual communities of their own specific sect and basis for polygamy. These small groups range from a few hundred up to 10,000, and are located across Western North America,[28] including:
Sure, check out laws in Utah, South Dakota, Kentucky. Google child marriage in teh US. It is not Muslims.
Problem is it is a law. It is not a few thousand.
in my country, the shorter working hours of women can be explained by gender roles, at least partly.
There is no law in my country that says women should do family things to support men who work for family and society. However, at school teachers ask to kids, what kinds of tasks are there at home that your mothers should do, what are your fathers doing at work. In textbooks, who is doing family things is mother or grandmother. A girl is cooking with mother and a boy is reading a book. They say to kids, do errands at home to help your mother. It is imprinted that family things are women’s role.
When the girls grow up, having to do all of the family things is a great disadvantage for them, if they want to do certain jobs and have their own families. On the boys side, even if they grow up to be willing to share the responsibility to family things, they also face obstacles to do women’s things. Their bosses and coworkers, regardless male or female, don’t allow them to go home early to do family things. Companies don’t hire women because they need maternity leave and they cannot work as long as men due to family things.
1 Like
and that’s the “wage gap” in a nutshell.
That’s what I thought. Off gassing from The Handmaid’s Tale.
The reality:
Warren Steed Jeffs is the President of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) and a convicted felon / child molester, currently serving a sentence of life plus 20 years. His prison term is the result of being convicted in 2011 of two felony counts of child sexual assault.
I don’t - I love my job(s). I’d do them for free, but I can’t help making profit from them.
I’m referring to the great unwashed, who are the usual targets of well-meaning “equal opportunities” rants, and who are invariably employed in pointless, soul-destroying jobs. Those jobs are created specifically with them in mind; their purpose is to produce wealth for people with fulfilling jobs.
Isn’t that what I said? I’m arguing against brainwashing people into believing things that cause immense stress to individuals and harm to society in general. 95% of people want to have, and care for, children. It’s an incredibly primitive drive, and we should support that instead of pretending primitive=bad.
It might be worth pointing out that people’s lives go through stages. I’m not saying people have to dedicate their entire existence to childbearing/rearing. It’s a comparatively brief period - 25 years, say, for an average family. That means the average person has 50 years of his life to do something else. But there is no logical reason why people - men or women - should be compelled to do drudge work while they’re trying to focus on something more important (and just to be clear, by ‘drudge work’ I mean preparing Powerpoint presentations, and by ‘important’ I mean cleaning up baby puke).
What environment is that? A nursery where someone checks on them every half hour or so to make sure they’re still alive? It might guarantee “equal” treatment, but I’m not sure that gives them any useful tools for making life decisions?
In any case, this one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t even work. Every parent knows that one kid responds to being treated like this and the other kid responds to being treated like that. More prosaically, you can’t take a dumb kid and give him the “opportunity” to become a doctor, because he’ll be downright miserable. Likewise you can’t take a smart kid and give him the “opportunity” to be a tyre-fitter.
There are only so many hours in the day, only so many paths that can be tried, and only so many chances that can be offered. Parents, teachers and the like do have to make informed choices about where a kid is likely to go in life. A lot of the time they get it wrong. But the answer is not to just tell the kid, hey, you can be anything you want. Because he can’t.
See, this is where I get really upset with the equality folks. We might not be cattle, but neither are we one of those sci-fi species that has escaped the constraints of our physical form. We are animals. We’re only a few genes away from chimps. Our hardware is almost identical. Our software is frighteningly similar. This should result in a little humility. The human tendency to imagine that we can bend nature to our whim is not an example of our collective smarts - it’s a bug in the system. A lot of what nature does has a purpose, but humans can rarely be bothered to find out what it is before they go off “fixing” it.
The flaw in your reasoning involves these mythical “fulfilling jobs”. I know a few people with fulfilling jobs. They’re not all doctors and lawyers, but they enjoy what they do. Most people just don’t.
In one of my jobs, I actually prefer to hire women, because in that country they’re a lot less full of shit than the men. That’s because men there are raised with the idea that they’re entitled to a life of ease, beer, and sex, and girls are raised with the idea that they have to earn money to support the family. So I’m not saying you’re incorrect that women and men are raised differently. They are. Both men and women are given silly ideas. I’m railing against this ‘everyone is completely equal’ because it’s just one more silly idea.
Quite frankly, I’d suggest the whole lot of them ought to be taken out and shot. What does this committee even do? Is it the same one that recommends that Americans should eat lots of grain and soy so that they can become nice and fat and round, ready for market? It’s just another bullshit job, and I have absolutely no doubt that whatever women on the committee are as much a burden on society as the men are.
1 Like
Check the string of laws that allow in too many states the marriage of minors. I remember reading the statistics for under 12 years old marriage snad it is disturbing in scope. We are not cherry picking nor gaslighting, it is a state law allowing something that shouldn’t be allowed.
Thsi is what I am talking about. Real concerns brushed off as women’s isues or “maiden tales” when the reality is scarier because it affects too many people. Think about the children born in bondage in that kind of mentality.
I hate to be the one to tell you you sound like a Trump apologist today, Andrew, but that is simply not how journalism works, in practice and also in law.
Example:
Summary: tortious negligence means you should be careful and can be careful but aren’t careful.
行為人已否盡善良管理人之注意義務，應依事件之特性，分別加以考量，因行為人之職業、危害之嚴重性、被害法益之輕重、防範避免危害之代價，而有所不同。
Summary: exactly how you should “be careful” depends on the context, including what kind of job you have. Not every kind of work can be held to the same standard.
新聞自由攸關公共利益，國家應給予最大限度之保障，俾新聞媒體工作者提供資訊、監督各種政治及社會活動之功能得以發揮；倘嚴格要求其報導之內容必須絕對正確，則將限縮其報導空間，造成箝制新聞自由之效果，影響民主多元社會之正常發展。故新聞媒體工作者所負善良管理人之注意義務，應從輕酌定之。
Summary: when you consider exactly how a journalist needs to be careful, you need to keep in mind that freedom of the press is essential in a functional democracy.
倘其在報導前業經合理查證，而依查證所得資料，有相當理由確信其為真實者，應認其已盡善良管理人之注意義務而無過失，縱事後證明其報導與事實不符，亦不能令負侵權行為之損害賠償責任。
Summary: therefore journalists are not considered to have been negligent if the facts they report turn out to be less than 100% accurate, as long as they did not shirk their duty to perform reasonable fact checking.
惟為兼顧個人名譽法益之保護，倘其未加合理查證率予報導，或有明顯理由，足以懷疑消息之真實性或報導之正確性，而仍予報導，致其報導與事實不符，則難謂其無過失，如因而不法侵害他人之名譽，即應負侵權行為之損害賠償責任。公眾人物之言行事關公益，其固應以最大之容忍，接受新聞媒體之監督，然新聞媒體就其言行之報導，仍負查證之注意義務，僅其所負注意程度較為減輕而已
Summary: of course this doesn’t mean they can commit libel with impunity, just that their role in society needs to be respected.
(It’s from a 2009 district court judgement citing a 2004 supreme court judgement, 93年度台上字第851號. In the district court case, the plaintiff sued two newspapers that reported a member of his family had had clandestine meetings with a criminal, citing an anonymous MJIB source. 
The plaintiff said there’s no proof that it’s true, and if it is true it shouldn’t have been reported anyway because it’s a state secret. The plaintiff lost, and the source was not divulged. If anyone knows a more recent case that contradicts this, I’m all ears.)
I’m sorry, I totally understand and respect your point, but that last one made me chuckle.
Men make 94% of work suicides. Men make up 93% of work fatalities. Men make up 81% of all war deaths. Men lose custody in 84% of divorces. 80% of all suicides are men. 77% of homicide victims are men. 89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime. But I continually see articles like the one i mentioned as a rally cry for how men treat women. If you give me a specific incident or some law or lack or legal rights women have, I will happily look at it and go to bat for equality. But i’m not ok with seeing a continual bashing of the male gender when most of us are decent human beings.
So I think here is where we have our problem. You get vilified for being yourself (“down with men!”), and I understand why and how that’s a problem. But then you see something that seems to be a continuation of it (“look at these sketchy men!”), so you equate it with what you’ve gotten used to.
So how is anyone supposed to write about the sketchy men who do exist, if we all need to avoid any kind of suggestion that might trigger (I’m looking at you Ibby) negative reactions in men who feel oppressed due to frequent vilification over the last few decades and constant vilification over the last few months?
I know there’s a problem, but I don’t see Ms. Chang as the equivalent of someone who makes up a satanic abuse ring in a pizza parlor and nearly gets someone killed by a vigilante because of it (i.e. a fake news writer).
@Rockefeller
Regarding surnames, what do you think of this?
Currently, most couples give the child the surname of the father […]
And yet–
Following traditional French custom, Quebec women did not change their legal names upon marriage, but were referred to by their husband’s surname in common speech. This latter practice fell out of favor following the Quiet Revolution, and spouses now retain their surnames after marriage in all contexts. A name change for marriage is difficult or impossible to do if desired, as requests to adopt a husband’s name after marriage are typically denied.[6][7][8]
Iirc even Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau (Justin’s wife) had to jump through some hoops to have her married name made official.
The problem is, how do you define organic, and how do you define artificial?
When this sort of problem arises, people tend to say look at (more or less) stone age tribes that were discovered in modern times, for they are living replicas of our ancestors! 
But when you look at them in detail you find a surprising amount of variation in cultural practices. 
You would really need to study humans who grew up without other humans to see exactly what our nature is, but even then it would be influenced by wolves or whatever species raised the human children. 
So actually, you would need an empty room with a food dispenser, but then the design and functioning of the food dispenser would be influential, not to mention that it would be a cruel experiment. 
There’s just no way to be absolutely certain about human nature, but we can be certain about our uncertainty, and thus it’s not unreasonable to speak of artificiality in any given culture. 
Actually, let’s talk about one of the most famous third world countries, Myanmar. After decades of military rule, one day poof! They had a parliament. And if you ask them what that was like, they’ll tell you at first they thought it wasn’t for real, so they (the members) just went through the motions and didn’t dare to speak their minds about anything. After a while, they realized the military actually wanted them to speak, because the military was aware of the fact that it couldn’t run the country by itself (or could but not very well).
Fast forward a few years, and you still have a terrible situation in the country overall, with widespread poverty, ethnic strife (to put it diplomatically), and so on. And people speculate about whether “the Lady” is really as free as she looks, because the military is still there and still powerful. Even if she is as free as she looks, there are still limits to what she and her allies can accomplish in the near future.
Does this prove democracy itself is a sham?
Similarly, if you raise an animal in a cage, you can “set it free” and watch while it continues to behave as if the whole world were a cage. Yet we know from observing wild animals that that isn’t exactly their nature. (Ymmv depending on the species and the size and design of the cage.)
Utopianism comes in different flavors, and the flavor you’re talking about (the genocidal kind) is worth watching out for, definitely. But how is it not utopian to say just take discrimination out of the laws, and everything is fine?
As you pointed out, men are at far higher risk of various things than women, despite theoretical equality. I absolutely agree that we should care about that and try to do something about it.
Btw if you really want equality in law, here’s your first assignment:
Act of Gender Equality in Employment
Article 5
In order to examine, consult and promote matters concerning gender equality in employment, the competent authorities at each government level shall set up committees on gender equality in employment.
The committees on gender equality in employment referred to in the preceding paragraph shall have five to eleven members with a term of two years. They shall be selected from persons with related expertise on labor affairs, gender issues or with legal backgrounds. Among them, two members shall be recommended by worker and female organizations respectively. The number of female members of the committees shall be over one-half of the total membership.
Matters concerning the organization, meeting and other related issues of the committees referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be prescribed by the competent authorities at each government level.
In the case of local competent authorities which have already set up committees on employment discrimination, they may handle the related matters referred to in the Act, provided that, the composition of these committees shall be in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
Senators are supposed to be crusty old men. It’s what the word means! 
And you can always change it or go by another one. I’ve never heard of anyone refusing to call someone a name they asked to be called.
You can’t always change your name.
then like I said, women would dominate the work force if they can work equally for less. It’s a ridiculous notion that a simple econ 101 course would have taught anyone could not be true or we would see it. In a competitive work market, wages are determined by supply and demand for labor. Both the people hiring and people providing labor are price takers…so if women are taking jobs for less than the market value of wages compared to their counterparts. They are doing so willingly or are intrinsically bad at negotiating wages.
Oh boy, now you’re sounding like someone whose name starts with J! 
Think about this. There’s no law stopping blacks or Asians from teaching English in Taiwan, yet we know the discrimination is real. Does that mean blacks and Asians are just bad negotiators?
There are businesses that hire mostly or entirely women. Do they save money? Probably, on average. Can everyone follow their lead? No. It depends on what kind of business you have and what kind of talent is available. (I’m not really interested in this line of argument btw, just pointing out that it’s not black and white.)
Icon is correct, it’s not fiction, and we have discussed this before.
An example is the problem of taxes on feminine higine products, which are a necessity, but non existent in most male oriented products. If everything was taxed, maybe, but as a real necessity, I do not think tampons should be taxed becuase some religious nut says we will lose our “valuable” virginity if we use them. Another extreme is the cost or even the restrictions to access birth control methods.
At least getting days off after birth -which is not a law in the US but in many “socialist” countries…like most of the rest of the world.
Where’s the evidence? Hand waving about looking up the laws myself or because we say so isn’t college graduate level discussion.
I thought learning how to use the interwebs was, like, primary school level these days. 
That’s your evidence of “non consensual poligamy with minors”?
Sad.
I was referring to child marriage, not polygamy. Of course polygamy isn’t legal in the US, but it happens anyway, as explained earlier.
The problem with feminism is it thrives on evil brotopia fantasies like the one that began this thread, the Rolling Stone frat house gang rape fantasy, or the “U.S. still allows non consensual poligamy with minors” fantasy.
Now it appears that fake fact feminism is going into high gear so there’s no telling where all this male bashing is going to end:
Polygamy is certainly not legally recognized by any US state, but living in an unrecognized group marriage is generally tolerated (except when underaged “wives” are involved) for the same reason that orgies are tolerated–the federal and state governments are either uninterested in, or barred from, policing such behavior.
Well … I’d argue that most taxes are inherently unfair, unreasonable, and counterproductive. So things like this aren’t an attack on women per se. Governments tax practically everything. You can’t even die without being taxed. So it’s not really a surprise that they tax tampons or contraceptives.
Again, that’s not really an attack on women specifically but a side effect of the Catholic Church’s lust for power. Fortunately, Taiwan isn’t Catholic.
I’d go along with that, but I’d also go further. My basic point is that work - in the sense of sitting at a desk doing stupid things - is not a ‘good’ in the economic sense of the word. It’s a waste of manpower, a waste of lives, and a waste of resources. It does nothing for the individual or for society. It is perverse to wring one’s hands over how many of either sex have the “right” to thus fritter their lives away. If we can reduce that sort of thing, so that people can focus on things that matter, everyone will be a lot happier and less interested in arguing over problems that really aren’t problems.
1 Like
And there is my point, laws are put in place to give both gender equality in life. In life some people are always under social pressure. It’s just the world works, it’s not just gender. How is it you propose to get rid of it. All of the ones have sound ridiculous and totalitarian to me.
If a girl wants to grow up to be a coal miner, by all means. I guarantee you no coal miner would refuse a promotion so they can better provide for their family.
Possibly. But when millions of women marched in rage in hopes that people hear them, I shut up and listened, or at least truly tried to.
I like my private gun collection too much for that.
Jesus. Obviously there is a point of no return where you should just deliver that baby and it’d be absolutely inhumane to terminate the child. I’m not intelligent or informed enough to decide when it is.
And like you said, it is human rights. Women’s rights are human rights.
But also. If we’re just speaking about abortion: So after all the talks about how you shouldn’t force people to do jobs they don’t want to do - now it’s okay to force people to do something they outright have no desire for? Especially when you’re messing with not one, but three lives (mother, father, child)? Find me a woman who utterly doesn’t want to be a mother, coerced to concession, and I’ll show you a miserable family with a messed up child. It sucks for all three parties. Keep in mind starting a family is (or at least should) be a lifetime commitment - Unlike regular jobs, there’s no such thing as quitting parenthood without severely ruining someone. Re: “losing a child” - do you want to be in that kind of a position? Have a baby with a woman who outright, unequivocally doesn’t want to? So no, it’s not too simple. Simplicity is at the right amount here.
For those who have been informed by a medical professional and thought through the ramifications yet still decide they don’t want to bring life to this Earth (or deliver them then abandon them then risk being judged or shunned or sued by the state/whoever else), they should have safe access to it. Because make no mistake, if a woman really doesn’t want to have a baby, they won’t. One way or another.
Also, re: contraceptives - the aforementioned crusty old politicians are the very ones putting up as many hoops and barriers as they can for women to have proper access to those things. Here’s a question: Do you believe either women would rather a) prevent unwanted pregnancy or b) knowing that they don’t want a kid but still get pregnant first, then terminate it afterwards. C’mon.
For all the miracle of having a child and the joy that raising one brings (which is not in doubt), let’s be honest - the actual process of childbirth is horrifying. Sure, co-creators of life. Men do biologically contribute, but ugly truth is, that part’s just the fun part. The women’s bodies get mangled, wild hormonal fluctuations, nausea, persistent vomiting. And that’s not counting the actual delivery itself which is bloody and painful beyond imagination. Some lucky women can physically bounce back from pregnancy, some often can’t and are left with chronic side-effects as a result to pregnancy. And then there’s the very real risk of postpartum depression (even with wanted and planned pregnancies). This is why I have respect for the grit and endurance of any woman who has given birth.
All of the above (including what you just said) are exactly why we should educate our daughters (and sons) so that they grow up to make informed and medically/morally sound decisions.
But no, ultimately, carrying a pregnancy to term is wholly a woman’s choice. Get smart doctors and scientists to figure out what the cut off date should be, but then anytime before such agreed upon date, safe abortion must be accessible to those who need it. It’s not just 9 months. It’s their entire lives having to deal with misery, shame and regret - mother, father, child. 3 lives ruined.
Money is unfortunately a necessity in life, but it isn’t and shouldn’t be everything. @finley
Also find @yyy’s answer.
Ha, we’re making money regardless. I’d rather make slightly less money and build a foundation and example for future generations than make a smidge more yet perpetuate a toxic cycle.
Because the people who are against those two things are the same group of people.
Refer back to historical and generational influence post.
They’ve already gotten to make the policies. It’s not working. That entire committee is not qualified. Also it’s weird that you seem to voluntarily lump yourself in with them and got your feelings hurt. Make no mistake, zero of the senators on that committee gives a flying-f about you, Andrew. In fact, if recording devices weren’t around, a couple of them would laugh and spit out some egregious, archaic statements towards you, to say the least. I’ve met one of them briefly by happenstance. Clueless, greedy, selfish dumbass.
You’re hanging out with the wrong women. Relieve yourself from them.